Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:06:19 -0600
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove completion from struct klist_node
Message-ID: <20081003140618.GQ13822@parisc-linux.org>
References: <20081002214308.GP13822@parisc-linux.org> <20081002221745.GC10485@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20081002221745.GC10485@kroah.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1240
Lines: 29

On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 03:17:45PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > +struct klist_waiter {
> > +	struct klist_waiter *next;
> > +	struct klist_node *node;
> > +	struct task_struct *process;
> > +	int woken;
> > +};
> 
> Why not use the built-in list.h functions here?

I'm somewhat averse to using data structures when they do more than I
need them to.  list_heads are great for when you need to remove an entry
from the middle of a list, but there are no advantages to using a
doubly-linked list here -- we always walk it from the start to the end,
and a singly linked list is fine for this purpose.  Maybe we need a set
of 'slist' macros so we can use singly-linked-lists without thinking
terribly hard, but I'd hate to see this patch get stuck behind
infrastructure improvements.

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/